Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#1227 Aug 19 2010 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
Surely you must realise, no matter what you think of your intellectual abilities, that no one here considers you a threat? It's part of the reason they'll argue with you so readily.

Quote:
Gbaji hit it on the spot. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that their argument is flawed or incorrect. In many cases, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, i.e the topic on abortion, capital punishment, gun control, etc. The two sides can argue all day and night and the result will always conclude to being just an opinion. As a result, it is silly to resort to insulting others because they don't agree with you.


Not really. Being internally consistent doesn't make something good - I can come up with a logically sound ethical system where human life has no inherent value whatsoever. Logic is not subjective, but the first principles that you logically derive an ethical system from are. If someone goes around killing people, I'll call them a murderous ******* whether they can justify it to themselves or not.
#1228 Aug 19 2010 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:
People like the fact that I oppose them because that gives them a chance to debate, but quickly grow frustrated when I don't give in.

Get over yourself, get out of high school. What's frustrating is not your stubbornness, it's your stupidity.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1229 Aug 19 2010 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Uh no. I could literally walk into any clique (the main ones) and fit right in.

Heh. It's always the goofballs who tell the "Oh, I sort of just belonged to every clique in high school..." stories.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1230 Aug 19 2010 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Desperate to not feel lonely and not having any real friends, they wander from group to group, talking to everyone but belonging nowhere.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#1231 Aug 19 2010 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Samira wrote:
I didn't know virus got banned either. Amazing how the flow of crazy shifted to fill in the void.
In a Looney Toons sort of way Varus provides some chuckles. He'll be back. There shall be some amusement generated in trying to spot him in his new posting name.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1232 Aug 19 2010 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda wrote:
Samira wrote:
I didn't know virus got banned either. Amazing how the flow of crazy shifted to fill in the void.
In a Looney Toons sort of way Varus provides some chuckles. He'll be back. There shall be some amusement generated in trying to spot him in his new posting name.


Not really, they're always immediately recognisable. It's not like he makes any attempt to hide who he is.

And the only amusing one was OkraBoy.
#1233 Aug 19 2010 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,971 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Desperate to not feel lonely and not having any real friends, they wander from group to group, talking to everyone but belonging nowhere.


Or one became a recluse and a pot-head so this scenario was easier to deal with.




Or.....so I heard.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1234 Aug 19 2010 at 9:11 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You can claim I'm lacking the "testicular fortitude" all you want, but I'm sure if the person responsible for the murder of someone close to you got off completely free, you wouldn't be thanking the defendant's lawyer for a "job well done".


I would argue that you lack the ethics of a lawyer. And any client you represent would have you brought up on charges to the Bar Association and file a malpractice suit against you.



According to the code of ethics that I posted on the other page, I don't. It is very simple, don't start anything you can't finish.

Kaelesh wrote:

Could care less, could care less.


I thought about that before posting and I couldn't remember which one it was. I wrote "could care less" once before here and was corrected to say "couldn't care less"


Regardless of what the actual saying is, I thought about it mathematically. On a scale of 0-100, my care is at a 0, which means I couldn't care any less. If I could care less, i.e. having a 45/100, that would mean that I actually care at all.

Thank you for you suggestion, but I'll stick with my own interpretation.

Bijou wrote:


a) You'd have to be as blind as Anne Frank if you think for a second that gbaji isn't an elitist, mysoginistic, racist, advantaged @#%^twad. He's so far to the right that Glen Beck e-mails him asking for tips on how to improve his fascist rhetoric.


You can't ban someone for "getting out of control" but at the same time say it's ok for someone else to stay because "that's just his personality".


Bijou wrote:
b) Attacking ElneClare for her leet typing skillz is pretty goddam low. In case you have failed to actualy read people's posts around here, you may have noticed that E/C has mentioned she is dealing with some nasty neuro disorder. I don't know exactly what it is but it's something like low-grade Alzheimers and Parkinsons smooshed into one miserable situation for her to deal with. Being a fellow neurologicaly @#%^ed up poster, I take extra umbrage at you attacking her. @#%^, man; have you ever read her sig?

ElneClare, if I'm way off on this, don't kill me, OK?


If she is sane enough to get on this forum and ridicule me, then she is sane enough for me to ridicule her back. I'm not doing background checks on people to make sure I don't hurt anyone's feelings before responding to un-provoked insults of me. If I met her in person and concluded that she had some mental illness that prevented her from thinking properly, then I would dismiss everything and walk away.

Besides, I only attacked her writing because she attacked mine. So, it's fair game.

Bijou wrote:
c) I didn't suggest you being banned. I suggested suicide for you for being such a horrible person.


I know, that's why I said if my name were even thought of.

Quote:
Perhaps you and gbaji cound mutualy off each other?


I'm sorry, I don't swing that way. You'll going to have find other forms of entertainment.. :)

Bijou wrote:

e) I heard you used to not be such a massive douche around here, once. Be that guy.


As stated, I only insult others after they insult me. If people accept that others have different opinions without ridiculing me, then we could have a mature debate. The reality is, that's not what the people want here. They want to insult and ridicule, they just don't like it when it comes back their way.

Bijou wrote:
f) One more thing. Earlier in this thread, or maybe in another you said something to the effect of "I'm not going to waste my time reading a book". Really? REALLY? REALLY???!? God @#%^ing forbid you should learn something new.


I only read non-fiction. Learning isn't restricted to reading books. You can search articles and scholastic journals online. I also like scientific magazines, i.e. Scientific Mind. I haven't gotten a subscription yet though. I have been looking at this book to read for a while now, but not having a scroll to maneuver through the pages is quite discouraging. Physically turning the pages, how barbaric!!!





#1235 Aug 19 2010 at 9:33 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, I only attacked her writing because she attacked mine. So, it's fair game.


"SHE DID IT FIRST SO THERE!!!111!1!1IO1NODNAS"


#1236 Aug 19 2010 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
According to the code of ethics that I posted on the other page, I don't. It is very simple, don't start anything you can't finish.
No, you're just misunderstanding both your link and what other people are saying. I wouldn't worry about it though.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#1237 Aug 19 2010 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Thank you for you suggestion, but I'll stick with my own interpretation.


You've got to admire that steely determination to ignore facts, ladies and gentlemen. How about a big round of applause for the most useless waste of carbon ever?

/clap
#1238 Aug 19 2010 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Varus got banned? Huh. Nope, not a clue.


Did he get a fair trial before being banned?

Biju wrote:
1). Alma: That bit about BT being the jock/bully guy in high school? That was totaly funny. I mean, I dunno, maybe he was, but the way you communicate on this board that was the impression I always had of you.


That was definitely not me. As mentioned, I only act this way here because I get attacked from so many people at once, I have to fire back in order hold my own.
You know we love to bait posters for our own enjoyment. It's what we big bad Asylumites do.Smiley: oyvey


Bijou wrote:
3). Kaolian: In all honesty I had attributed the following (re: bannination) to Varrus when I read it; in my gulliver, like.

Almalieque, responding to Elne Clare wrote:

Even BT's "making points without making points" posts added more value than your presence and that's pretty sad. Politely go back smoking crack or whatever it is that you smoke and leave this conversation to the sober. The audacity of some people... seriously, you? Of all people, you, really? You're so below me it's almost offensive to me that you would even think to criticize me. Why don't you go find a VCR to steal or something. I'm sure there's someone to represent you in court.



Looks like I was wrong. Hey Alma...do us all a favor and kill yourself, a'ight?


Quote:
I only feel a little bad for saying that, but I think about what happened and I don't.

She comes in the conversation 23 pages after the fact just to ridicule me and questions my entrance to college while attacking my grammar in a poorly written post. Her post was completely unnecessary. As I mentioned, I only insult people when they insult me first.

As for the banning..... that's ludicrous. If my name were even thought of for being banned before a list of other people, then that supports the theory of Allakhazam having biases towards certain views. This would explain why it's so heavily one-sided here. It's because if you disagree and respond in the same manner as everyone else (i.e. insults), then you get banned.

Seriously..I know off the top of my head two people, Mindel and Barking Turtle, who spewed out racial slurs that insulted an entire race and somehow I should be in consideration for banning for insulting a person who attacked me? There is no logic in that, only prejudicial bias. I know some people that would really show you the power of an "ape" by some of the things said on this forum. I'm just smart enough to realize where I stand in society, so it doesn't offend me in this environment because I know I'm above that.


Wow, talk about dense, Alma do we have to give you a power point presentation to help you understand what people are trying to tell you. My comment was due to the fact that several posters have try to explain facts about how the courts works in the USA. When you still went on about how you were just giving an logical argument of facts, the thread started to be interesting, as I wonder how anyone could be a worst writer then me and not even try to proof read their posts. Plus there was wanting to say I had posted in the Thread of Doom.

As anyone who has tried to have a reasonable argument with tin foil hat folks, know from the start trying to explain truth to someone, who is assured they are right no matter how illogical their arguments are.

I can see how people felt you went too far in your attack on me. You used nearly every racial stereotype of poor intercity black males, which I find sad since I made sure I never go there when I address my friends here in the city. Sure I can point out a few people in my neighborhood who may be guilty of such activities, but it isn't my place to judge them.

Having lived in the Suburbs and on military bases, I find living in the city with it's poor preferable over dealing with those who assume they are better then others just because they make 6 figures. I will never be someone who is willing to do as they are command, without asking themselves why.

Yes I'm poor, but I have far more riches then the majority of the people I see living in nicer homes. Jonwin and I have so many books that our bookshelves are overflowing. We both are bookworms who love to study history. Our house is filled with original art work and family heirlooms.

What I don't have is good health. When I was 42, my body broke down due to stress. Over night I went from being a woman who always tried to eat healthy and walk several miles a day, to barely being able to get out of my bed to get something to eat. While through proper medical care an my inner strength has enable me to deal with the pain I'm in daily, it's not something I would wish on anyone.

As to my writing, if you think it's bad now, you're lucky to never seen anything I wrote in grammar school. Along with my artistic talent, and above adage intelligence, I inherited a language processing disorder, that runs in my family. Learning how to talk, were anyone could understand me took years of work. Few now can notice my speech impairment now, but to those that know, they can tell when the pain is worst then normal, just by listening to my slurred speech.

This is way more they you may care to know about me, but behind my attempt to make fun of you, I had to wonder how much of what I said was true. Having gone through as many tests and trials in my life, I learn a few things that can only come with age and suffering.

As to those who took time to defend me, thanks you for your support even if I can be rather annoying. I normally try to stay silent and let better writers respond to the stupidity that even intelligent people are capable of. Well the spell checker only is marking the quotes in this post, so I'm done for now.

Edited, Aug 19th 2010 11:53am by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#1239 Aug 19 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Sorry Elne, but I'm not reading that for fear I'll catch the Alzheimer's.
#1240 Aug 19 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Sorry Elne, but I'm not reading that for fear I'll catch the Alzheimer's.


Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol

It's my plan to foll the zombies, when they invade. My brain will be so toxic, none will attack me.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#1241 Aug 19 2010 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Varrus got banned again?

. . .


My work is done.
#1242 Aug 19 2010 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Her post was completely unnecessary.


Now you know how we feel about your posts.
#1243 Aug 19 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
Actually, I was going by the judge's own description of the incompetence of the counsel and their witnesses.


So I correctly interpreted your statement to mean that they were "bad lawyers". I mean, it's not like it was hard to get that impression from the various articles out there. My point is that this perception was created by how the media reported it. Did you read a quote from the judge saying he thought they were incompetent? Or did you infer that from the quotes you read in the news?

I'm suggesting that a lot of the stuff people laugh about has been somewhat selectively quoted specifically to provoke that reaction.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1244 Aug 19 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
All I'm saying is the Prop 8 guys didn't put on much of a case. I suspect they were surprised by the state's decision to forgo any defense, and were left scrambling for Plan B, but of course I don't know.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1245 Aug 19 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
**
290 posts
posting in a really long thread
#1246 Aug 19 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Judge Walker on their choice of witnesses:

Quote:
Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.


Quote:
The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he
cited in his expert report.


Judge Walker stumping the counsel for the Prop 8 side:

Quote:
Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an
answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”


He does praise the counsel as being "able and energetic":

Quote:
Doc #605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents, represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8.


But then he points out that the prop 8 trial fluffed up their witnesses without warning them to keep quiet about said fluffing:

Quote:
Miller admitted that proponents’ counsel provided him with most of the “materials considered” in his expert report.


- which looks really bad for the lawyers on that side. They gave evidence to one of the expert witnesses they called.

All these were in Judge Walker's court opinion. You can read them yourself.

I'm sure that the counsel retained by the Prop 8 side really did the best that they could. They were getting paid a lot of money to defend on behalf of the state, after all. It just goes to show what a terrible case they had to defend.
#1247 Aug 19 2010 at 3:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
catwho wrote:
Judge Walker on their choice of witnesses:

Quote:
Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.


Quote:
The credibility of Miller’s opinions relating to gay and lesbian political power is undermined by his admissions that he: (1) has not focused on lesbian and gay issues in his research or study; (2) has not read many of the sources that would be relevant to forming an opinion regarding the political power of gays and lesbians; (3) has no basis to compare the political power of gays and lesbians to the power of other groups, including African-Americans and women; and (4) could not confirm that he personally identified the vast majority of the sources that he
cited in his expert report.


Witnesses are not required to consider evidence contrary to their own view. That's why you have multiple witnesses and each side gets to call their own. Each is there to provide their viewpoint. This reads more like "This witness doesn't agree with me", than anything else. Remember, the Defense's purpose here is to present their positions in as minimal a way as possible in order to obtain an appeal and present their arguments at the next level.

It's not bad lawyering to recognize that you're not going to win this round no matter what you do, and to do just enough to ensure that you can appeal to a higher court in which you have a chance. In fact, it can be quite good lawyering to realize this and not tip your hand too much when calling witnesses. Why do you suppose they only called two?

Quote:
Judge Walker stumping the counsel for the Prop 8 side:

Quote:
Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”


I wouldn't call that being stumped. Flummoxed by an activist judge who's so clearly basing his opinion on bizarre notions that the government's job is to provide for people perhaps, but not "stumped". The counsel's original answer that it's "not the relevant question" is correct. We don't judge whether a state interest is harmed by doing something different when considering whether to do said different thing, but whether said different thing itself meets the same state interest.

It's like arguing that medicare shouldn't be expanded to include providing everyone a free pony, and having someone then ask you how providing a free pony harms the state interest of medicare. The correct question is how providing everyone a free pony advances the state interest of medicare, right? Same deal here. Does the inclusion of gay couples into the status of marriage advance the proposed state interest in marriage (in this case the procreative argument proposed by counsel).

I imagine the thought going through the attorney's mind right about then was "WTF? Where the hell did this guy learn the law?". While I'm sure he probably should have given a better answer than that, it's not surprising that he might be a bit taken aback by such an absurd question, and got a bit flustered when the judge didn't apparently realize how irrelevant the question was. Of course, we'd have to look at the full document with transcripts in order to know how the full exchange went.

Quote:
He does praise the counsel as being "able and energetic":

Quote:
Doc #605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents, represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8.


Actually, the more relevant point here is the statement "developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8". That was the sole objective of the defense in this stage of the case and they achieved it.

Quote:
I'm sure that the counsel retained by the Prop 8 side really did the best that they could. They were getting paid a lot of money to defend on behalf of the state, after all. It just goes to show what a terrible case they had to defend.


Sure. So now it's that it's a terrible case to defend. You're right in way. It's a terrible case to defend in a San Fransisco District Court. And it's a terrible case to defend in the 9th circuit. Hence, why they didn't expend any more effort than necessary doing so.

It's not a terrible case to bring to the Supreme Court though. The defense knows what they're doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1248 Aug 19 2010 at 3:19 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
It's not bad lawyering to recognize that you're not going to win this round no matter what you do, and to do just enough to ensure that you can appeal to a higher court in which you have a chance.


Except no new evidence is allowed to be submitted during the appeal. You have to give everything you have up front; there are no do-overs.
#1249 Aug 19 2010 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
catwho wrote:
I'm sure that the counsel retained by the Prop 8 side really did the best that they could.

Afterward, they all went to get ice cream.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1250 Aug 19 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
catwho wrote:
I'm sure that the counsel retained by the Prop 8 side really did the best that they could.

Afterward, they all went to get ice cream.


Smiley: laugh
#1251 Aug 19 2010 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
When I read a news article about a controversial court case, and the article seems to go out of it's way to paint one side as incompetent, unprepared, and generally confused...
And rather than give any shred of evidence, just write a paragraph and end with an "it's obvious"?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 703 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (703)